Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is in reply to the application filed on 10/29/2025.
Claims 6, 8, 11, 23 and 25 have been amended.
Claims 2-5, 7, 10, 13, 15, 17-22, 24, and 26-31 have been canceled.
Claims 1, 6, 8-9, 11-12, 14, 16, 23, 25 are pending and have been examined.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 6, 8-9, 11-12, 14, 16, 23, 25 are directed to a system, method, or product which are one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
Claim 1, 6, 8-9, 11-12, 14, 16, 23, 25are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional computer elements, which are recited at a high level of generality, provide conventional computer functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 1 recites, in part, A method of obtaining compensation for tasks performed by a humanoid robot associated with a first party, said method comprising the steps of: a first party provides a humanoid robot for use at an operating location; a humanoid robot engages in performing a plurality of tasks at the operating location; and the first party is compensated with a specified amount of currency for a pre-determined time interval during which said humanoid robot is located at the operating location.. The limitations are directed to “business relations” (commercial interactions - see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)). Hence, they fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements such as a humanoid robot, a first party to perform receiving, performing. The generic computer components are recited at a high-level of generality (receiving and performing) such that it is generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Next the claim as a whole is analyzed to determine whether any element, or combination of elements, is sufficient to ensure the claim amounts to significantly more than an abstract idea. Claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements of at least a computing device to perform receiving and identifying data are generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h). There is no improvement to computer technology or computer functionality MPEP 2106.05(a) nor a particular machine MPEP 2106.05(b) nor a particular transformation MPEP 2106.05(c). Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) see MPEP 2106.05(d). Given the above reasons, a generic processing device used to transmit a payment is not an Inventive Concept. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
The dependent claims have been given the full two part analysis (Step 2A – 2-prong tests and step 2B) including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The Dependent claim(s) when analyzed both individually and in combination are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because for the same reasoning as above and the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea. The additional limitations of the dependent claim(s) when considered individually and as ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) parts of humanoid robot. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements (such as a torso, a distal end, an arm axis, etc.) are generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h). Therefore, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) parts of humanoid robot. The additional elements are a This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the limitations (such as a torso, a distal end, an arm axis, etc.) are generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h). Therefore, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) parts of humanoid robot. The additional elements are a This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements (such as a torso, a distal end, an arm axis, etc.) are generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h). Therefore, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) parts of humanoid robot. The additional elements are a This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the limitations (such as a torso, a distal end, an arm axis, etc.) are generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h). Therefore, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) parts of humanoid robot. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the limitations (such as a right leg, a left leg) are Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h). Therefore, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) hip pivot actuator. The additional elements are a This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the limitations (such as a hip pivot actuator) are Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h). Therefore, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) parts of humanoid robot. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the limitations (such as a leg twist actuator) are Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h). Therefore, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) parts of humanoid robot. The additional elements are a This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the limitations (such as a deformable cover) are Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h). Therefore, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) parts of humanoid robot. The additional elements are a This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the limitations (such as sensors) are generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h). Therefore, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MBL Limited (WO 2017/103682 A2) in view of Michalakis (US 2018/0281179 A2).
Claim 1. MBL Limited discloses: A method of obtaining compensation for tasks performed by a humanoid robot associated with a first party, said method comprising the steps of: a first party provides a humanoid robot for use at an operating location (see at least par. [0709] “. . . The storage arrangements in the kitchen module 1 store the plurality of containers in predetermined positions which are known to the robot. The positions of the other components of the kitchen module 1, such as the rotatable oven 130, the hob 5, sink 6 and the dishwasher unit 6A are all predetermined and their positions are known to the robot. A robot, such as the robot arms 13, can therefore perform operations within the kitchen module 1 and interact with the components of the kitchen module 1 easily and without error . . ”; a humanoid robot engages in performing a plurality of tasks at the operating location (MBL Limited (WO 2017/103682 A2), see at least par. [0550] “ These input sources make the humanoid robot situationally aware and thus able to carry out its tasks, from direct low level actuator commands 3020 to high level robotic end-to-end task plans from the robotic planner 3022 that can reference a large electronic library of component minimanipulations 3024, which are then interpreted to determine whether their preconditions permit application and converted to machine-executable code from a robotic interpreter module 3026 and then sent as the actual command-and-sensing sequences to the robotic execution module 3028”.
MBL Limited does not disclose the following; however, Michalakis teaches:
and the first party is compensated with a specified amount of currency (Michalakis (US 2018/0281179 A1), see at least par. [0054] “. . . Thus, the secondary user may perform one or more tasks for the primary user using the robot, for example, for payment, under certain limitations such that the primary user may limit the robotic movements that the secondary user may instruct the robot to perform and may limit the locations that the secondary may instruct the robot to enter . . .”) for a pre-determined time interval during which said humanoid robot is located at the operating location (see at least par. [0037] “. . . One or more task specific robotic operation constraints comprise a set of rules stored in the robotic operation library 105 that limit operation of the robot 120 when the remote user is controlling the robot 120 during each specific task. Further, the robotic operation constraints may comprise constraints regarding the dates and times that the secondary user 116″ may operate the robot 120”) The robot Is set to work for a pre-determined time interval, or within certain date and time.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify MBL Limited by compensating with a specified amount of money as taught by Michalakis, because modifying MBL limited using elements taught by Michalakis helps to provide instructions to the robot by one of the owner (Abstract). Therefore, the claimed invention is obvious in view of the cited references.
Claim 25. MBL Limited in view of Michalakis teaches: (Currently Amended) The method of claim 1. Furthermore, MBL Limtied teaches: wherein the humanoid robot includes: (i) sensors that capture natural language and contextual information, and(ii) at least one transformer-based model (MBL Limited (WO 2017/103682 A2), see at least par. [0356] “. . . The breakdown or boundary between low- and high-level behaviors can be somewhat arbitrary, but one way to think of it is that movements or actions or behaviors that humans tend to carry out without much conscious thinking (such as curling ones fingers around a tool/utensil until contact is made and enough contact-force is achieved) as part of a more human-language task-action (such as "grab the tool"), can and should be considered low-level. In terms of a machine-language execution language, all actuator-specific commands, which are devoid of higher-level task awareness, are certainly considered low-level behaviors.”).
Claims 6, 8, 9, 11, 14, 16, 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MBL Limited (WO 2017/103682 A2) in view of Michalakis (US 2018/0281179 A2) in further view of Ly et al. (US 2019/0374161).
Claim 6. (Currently Amended). MBL Limited in view of Michalakis teaches: The method of claim 1. However Ly teaches: wherein the humanoid robot includes: (i) a torso, (Ly et al. (US 2019/0374161) see at least par. [0148] “. . . For example, the exosuit 1500 can be configured to transmit motions, forces, and/or torques generated by a user to a robotic system (e.g., a robotic arm, leg, torso, humanoid body, or some other robotic system) and the robotic system can be configured to mimic the activity of the wearer and/or to map the activity of the wearer into motions, forces, or torques of elements of the robotic system . . .”) (ii) an arm actuator coupled to the torso and having: (a) a proximal end, (d) a distal end, and (c) an arm axis, and (iii) a coronal plane, and wherein the arm axis is angled rearward in relation to thecoronal plane (see at least Claim 2 “The exosuit system of claim 1, wherein the plurality of sensors are 6-axis inertial measurement units (IMUs), and wherein first, second, and third sensors of the plurality of sensors are located on the torso, left leg, and right leg, respectively, of the exosuit . . .”), therefore causing a portion of the distal end of the arm actuator to be positioned rearward of (see at least par. [0049] “. . . For example, one or more FLAs may connect the back of the torso to the back of the legs, thus approximating the wearer's hip extensor muscles. Actuators approximating the hip extensors may assist with activities such as standing from a seated position, sitting from a standing position, walking, or lifting. Similarly, one or more actuators may be arranged approximating other muscle groups, such as the hip flexors, spinal extensors, abdominal muscles or muscles of the arms or legs.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify MBL Limited in view of Michalakis by including the humanoid robot parts as taught by Ly, because modifying MBL limited in view of Michalakis using elements taught by Ly helps to provide the instructions to the robot. Therefore, the claimed invention is obvious in view of the cited references.
Claim 8. (Currently Amended). MBL Limited in view of Michalakis teaches: The method of claim 1. However, Ly teaches: wherein the humanoid robot further comprises an upper arm twist actuator with an upper arm twist axis and a lower arm twist actuator with a lower arm twist axis, and wherein the upper arm twist axis is co-linear with the lower arm twist axis, when the humanoid robot is in the extended position (Ly, see at least par. [0067] “Base layer 100 can include upper arm LDMs 120 and 122 and lower arm LDMs 124 and 126. Upper arm LDMs 120 and 122 may be secured around bicep/triceps region of the arm and can occupy space between the shoulder and the elbow. Lower arm LDMs 124 and 126 may be secured around the forearm region of the arm and can occupy the space between the elbow and the wrist. If desired, upper arm LDM 120 and lower arm LDM 124 may be integrated to form an arm LDM, and upper arm LDM 122 and lower arm LDM 126 may be integrated to form another arm LDM. In some embodiments, arm LDMS 120, 122, 124, and 126 may form part of upper torso LDM 112.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify MBL Limited in view of Michalakis by including the humanoid robot parts as taught by Ly, because modifying MBL limited in view of Michalakis using elements taught by Ly helps to provide the instructions to the robot. Therefore, the claimed invention is obvious in view of the cited references.
Claim 9. (Previuosly Presented) MBL Limited in view of Michalakis teaches: The method of claim 8. Ly, however teaches: wherein the humanoid robot further comprises an elbow actuator with an elbow axis, and wherein the elbow axis is offset from a line that extends between the upper arm twist axis and the lower arm twist axis (Ly, see at least par. [0108] “There can be three general classes of sensors available for use in detecting and analyzing bending and lifting movements. The class of sensors determines which algorithms are used to analyze the bending and lifting movements. A first class of sensors includes only one or more 3-axis accelerometers. A second class of sensors includes at least three 6-axis inertial motion units (IMUs), where each IMU includes a three axis gyroscope and a three axis accelerometer. A third class of sensor includes only one 6-axis IMU. A fourth class of sensors can include one or more 9-axis IMUs (e.g., an IMU that include a gyroscope, an accelerometer, and a magnetometer).”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify MBL Limited in view of Michalakis by including the humanoid robot parts as taught by Ly, because modifying MBL limited in view of Michalakis using elements taught by Ly helps to provide the instructions to the robot. Therefore, the claimed invention is obvious in view of the cited references.
Claim 11. (Currently Amended). MBL Limited in view of Michalakis teaches: The method of claim 1. However, Ly teaches: wherein the humanoid robot includes a left leg that is interchangeable with a right leg (Ly, see at least par. [0036] “. . . In one example, the torso circumference may be tightened with corset-style lacing, the legs tightened with hook-and-loop in a double-back configuration, and the length and shoulder height adjusted with webbing and tension-lock fasteners such as cam-locks, D-rings or the like. The size adjustment features in the base layer may be actuated by the power layer to dynamically adjust the base layer to the wearer's body in different positions, in order to maintain consistent pressure and comfort for the wearer. For example, the base layer may be required to tighten on the thighs when standing, and loosen when sitting such that the base layer does not excessively constrict the thighs when seated. The dynamic size adjustment may be controlled by the sensor and controls layer, for example by detecting pressures or forces in the base layer and actuating the power layer to consistently attain the desired force or pressure.”)The body parts can be removed and put in the robot .
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify MBL Limited in view of Michalakis by including the humanoid robot parts as taught by Ly, because modifying MBL limited in view of Michalakis using elements taught by Ly helps to provide the instructions to the robot. Therefore, the claimed invention is obvious in view of the cited references.
Claim 14. (Previously Presented) Ly in view of Michalakis teaches: The method of claim 1. However, Ly teaches: wherein the humanoid robot includes a hip pivot actuator having a hip pivot axis, and wherein an interior acute angle is formed between said hip pivot axis and a transverse plane of the humanoid robot, when the robot is in the extended position (Ly, see par. [0049] “] The powered actuators, or FLAs, are arranged on the base layer, connecting different points on the body, to generate forces for assistance with various activities. The arrangement can often approximate the wearer's muscles, in order to naturally mimic and assist the wearer's own capabilities. For example, one or more FLAs may connect the back of the torso to the back of the legs, thus approximating the wearer's hip extensor muscles. Actuators approximating the hip extensors may assist with activities such as standing from a seated position, sitting from a standing position, walking, or lifting. Similarly, one or more actuators may be arranged approximating other muscle groups, such as the hip flexors, spinal extensors, abdominal muscles or muscles of the arms or legs.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify MBL Limited in view of Michalakis by including the humanoid robot parts as taught by Ly, because modifying MBL limited in view of Michalakis using elements taught by Ly helps to provide the instructions to the robot. Therefore, the claimed invention is obvious in view of the cited references.
Claim 16. (Previously Presented). MBL Limited in view of Michalakis teaches: The method of claim 1. However, Li teaches: wherein the humanoid robot comprises: (i) a leg twist actuator that is positioned a first distance from a support surface, and (ii) both of a hip pivot actuator and a hip flex actuators are positioned at least a second distance from the support surface; and wherein the first distance is less than the second distance (Ly, see at least par. [0044] “. . . For example, elastic elements approximating hip flexors and hip extensors may provide stability to the wearer in a standing position. As the wearer deviates from the standing position, the elastic elements are deformed, generating forces that stabilize the wearer and assist maintaining the standing position. In another example, as a wearer moves from a standing to seated posture, energy is stored in one or more elastic elements, generating a restorative force to assist the wearer when moving from the seated to standing position. Similar passive, elastic elements may be adapted to the torso or other areas of the limbs to provide positional stability or assistance moving to a position where the elastic elements are in their least-energy state.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify MBL Limited in view of Michalakis by including the humanoid robot parts as taught by Ly, because modifying MBL limited in view of Michalakis using elements taught by Ly helps to provide the instructions to the robot. Therefore, the claimed invention is obvious in view of the cited references.
Claim 23 (Currently Amended). MBL Limited in view of Michalakis teaches: The method of claim 1. However, Li teaches: wherein the humanoid robot includes a deformable cover that is configured to prevent objects from contacting portions of the humanoid robot (Ly, see at least par. [0062] “. . . Base layer 100 and any LDMs thereof can cover or occupy any part of the human body as desired. The LDMs shown in FIGS. 1A-IC are merely illustrative of a few potential locations and it should be appreciated that additional LDMs may be added or certain LDMs may be omitted.”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify MBL Limited in view of Michalakis by including the humanoid robot parts as taught by Ly, because modifying MBL limited in view of Michalakis using elements taught by Ly helps to provide the instructions to the robot. Therefore, the claimed invention is obvious in view of the cited references.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MBL Limited (WO 2017/103682 A2) in view of Michalakis (US 2018/0281179 A2) in further view of Universal Robots (WO 2025/103557 A1).
Claim 12.(Previously Presented) MBL Limited in view of Michalakis teaches: The method of claim 1. However, Universal Robots teaches: wherein the humanoid robot includes a number of degrees of freedom NDoF and an upper portion of the humanoid robot, wherein the upper portion includes: (a) a head and neck assembly, (b) an upper portion of a torso, (c) a left arm assembly, (d) a right arm assembly, (e) a left hand, and (f) a right hand, and wherein said upper portion of the humanoid robot includes more than 70% of the NDoF (Universal Robots (WO 2025/103557 A1), see at least “. . . The operational parameters may relate to one or more .sub.of the following: input/output ports in the robotic system or an end effector or tool connected to the robotic arm. The operations may include, prior to controlling the robotic arm to move the component into alignment, controlling the robotic arm to enable manual movement of the robotic arm in multiple degrees of freedom. Controlling the robotic arm to move the component into alignment may be performed automatically absent manual intervention. Controlling the robotic .sub.arm to move the component into alignment may be performed in combination with manual movement of the robotic arm. T.sub.he component may include a tool connected to the robotic arm. .sub.The component may include a part of the robotic arm. The robotic system may include a vision system associated with .sub.the robotic arm to capture the sensor data . . .”) .
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify MBL Limited in view of Michalakis by including the degree of freedom for movement as taught by Universal Robots, because modifying MBL limited in view of Michalakis using elements taught by Universal Robots helps to provide the instructions to the robot. Therefore, the claimed invention is obvious in view of the cited references.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TOAN DUC BUI whose telephone number is (571)272-0833. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michael W. Anderson can be reached on (571) 270-0508. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TOAN DUC BUI/ Examiner, Art Unit 3693
/Mike Anderson/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3693